Mark: Not so. Coherence is one form of sq-sq relationships. Another is stasis. Yet another is chaos. I can't think of a fourth. That's the postulation.
[Case] The concept of relationship is inherently dynamic. There can be no relationships between purely static entities. A relationship demands a response change. Just look at how you have stated it. Stasis is static. It is entropy. Chaos is dynamic. It is change and energy. If you put stasis on one end and chaos on the other the possibilities are endless. [Mark] A metaphorical way of seeing this is to paraphrase this ZMM passage: "The sun of quality," he wrote, "does not revolve around the subjects and objects of our existence. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. The sun of DQ does not revolve around sq relationships. It does not just passively illuminate them. It is not subordinate to them in any way. It has created them. To continue with this metaphor: The best sq orbits are coherent. Further, the most coherent relationships orbit closer to DQ. In what way does any of this define DQ? Answer: Not at all. [Case] Coherence is more of an assessment of a relationship's spot on the stasis chaos continuum. It's the probability of stability. Coherent relationships hang together at least enough to be recognized as such. More than anything, coherence is a measure of relative stasis. I am arguing for a Quality centered model orbited by relationships. Relationships, experiences and events all have static and dynamic properties both of which can often be specified. Each event is an expression of the Quality of tension between the static and the dynamic. Mark: It's not possible to discuss DQ in anything other than sq terms. Coherence is one way of discussing sq-sq relationships. I think you are confusing excellence with DQ Case. Coherence is a feature of excellence but to state DQ is excellence is going some way to defining DQ, which is surely a no no. When i discuss coherence is discuss excellence not DQ. [Case] To say that DQ is undefined either adds a second undefined term to the MoQ or throws Quality out of its own metaphysics. Beyond that it cuts the MoQ off from the wealth of information represented by fluid dynamics and nonlinear dynamics where the concepts of static and dynamic naturally transpose. In any event I do not think DQ is excellent. Many if not most dynamic events carry with them the potential for disaster. A plane crash is dynamic. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
